★ Find a new page to transcribe in our list of Untranscribed Manuscripts
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
speeches</note><lb/> | speeches</note><lb/> | ||
In defending the design <add>in question</add> the radicalists against<lb/> | <p>In defending the design <add>in question</add> the radicalists against<lb/> | ||
the accusations<add>imputation</add> that have <add>they</add> been cast upon it, it <add>was</add> seemed<lb/> | the accusations<add>imputation</add> that have <add>they</add> been cast upon it, it <add>was</add> seemed<lb/> | ||
not sufficient to defend it against the imputation of a<lb/> | |||
<del><gap/></del> tendency to produce evil in <del>that</del> the particular shape<lb/> | |||
designated by the words "the subversion of the rights of property.<lb/> | |||
For supposing that, although it <gap/> clear of<lb/> | |||
that imputation, it <gap/> not <gap/> of the imputation if<lb/> | |||
producing preponderant evil in some other shape or<lb/> | |||
shapes, in this supposition it would still remain indefensible.</p> | |||
<p><del>It therefore seems</del> To the denial of its tendency<lb/> | |||
to produce evil in that particular shape it therefore<lb/> | |||
seemed necessary to prefer a denial of its tendency to<lb/> | |||
produce <hi rend="underline">preponderant</hi> evil in <hi rend="underline">any</hi> shape</p> | |||
<note>13 or 3<lb/> | <note>13 or 3<lb/> |
1819 Dec. 21 Radicalism not dangerous
1. &c
§.2. Speeches Nov
11 or 1
Cher
1. In July Speech
subversive of the
2. In November Speech
subversion of rights
of property.
Taking the two speeches together, here then are two
ends evil designsintention charged: charged in the same class of person,
namely the<add>all</add> reformist: meaning or at the least including all radical reformists.
In the July Speech the design is the subversion of the
"constitution: that design and no other.
In the November Speech it is the subversion of
"the rights of property."
Of The design first charged the description give
has no determinate meaning. Accordingly no uncertain
would have law been made of it, but for the intimate connection
between the speech by which this accusation is conveyed
and the other speech by which the other accusation is conveyed.
12 or 2
Subversion of the<
Constitution has no
precise meaning:
would not have been
mentioned but for
the identity of the persons
designated in the two
speeches
In defending the design in question the radicalists against
the accusationsimputation that have they been cast upon it, it was seemed
not sufficient to defend it against the imputation of a
tendency to produce evil in that the particular shape
designated by the words "the subversion of the rights of property.
For supposing that, although it clear of
that imputation, it not of the imputation if
producing preponderant evil in some other shape or
shapes, in this supposition it would still remain indefensible.
It therefore seems To the denial of its tendency
to produce evil in that particular shape it therefore
seemed necessary to prefer a denial of its tendency to
produce preponderant evil in any shape
13 or 3
In the defence found
necessary to add
to subversive of
rights of property
des of preponderant evil in
every shape . defence
otherwise insufficient
Identifier: | JB/137/094/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 137. |
|||
---|---|---|---|
1819-12-21 |
11 or 1 - 13 or 3 |
||
137 |
radicalism not dangerous |
||
094 |
radicalism not dangerous |
||
001 |
|||
text sheet |
1 |
||
recto |
c1 / e4 |
||
jeremy bentham |
[[watermarks::[prince of wales feathers] i&m 1818]] |
||
arthur wellesley, duke of wellington |
|||
1818 |
|||
46811 |
|||